Subscribe to this blog

Follow by Email

Who Is God? Part 2 - A Disciple Conversation about God's Triune Nature

Today, I am sharing part two of a two-part conversation about the nature of God. I take up what might be controversial in Disciples circles --- the doctrine of the Trinity. We are not of one mind on this topic, but the majority of our ecumenical partners embrace it. So, it's important that we be conversant. I will state up front that I am a Trinitarian, so much of what I share below reflects my own perspectives. I invite your contributions to the conversation. For that is what this is intended to be, a conversation starter about the key elements of Christian theology.

************

The Christian understanding
of God has been largely defined in Trinitarian terms. The Trinity is the way in which most
Christians have named God. We maybe
monotheistic, but Judaism and Islam have a much more consistent and narrow
understanding of monotheism. While the majority of Christian traditions are
Trinitarian, the Disciples have been largely ambivalent about the doctrine of
the Trinity. Thus, as Ronald Osborn notes:

The Disciples regarded themselves
as neither Trinitarian nor Unitarian.
Alexander Campbell would not use the term Trinitarian because it did not
appear in scripture. He even changed one
line in the great Trinitarian hymn, “Holy, Holy, Holy,” so that instead of
saying “God in three persons, blessed Trinity,” people would sing, “God over
all, and blest eternally. [ Ronald Osborn, TheFaith We Affirm: Basic Beliefs of Disciples of Christ, (St. Louis: Chalice
Press, 1979), p. 52.]

One could say that among Disciples affirmation of the
doctrine of the Trinity is not a test of fellowship.

While Disciples have not taken a
firm position on the Trinity, it is important to understand this doctrine if
for no other reason that we have as a denomination affirmed the doctrine through
our ecumenical partnerships, such as the World Council of Churches, which holds
to a Trinitarian doctrinal standard as seen in its faith statement: "a
fellowship of churches which confess the Lord Jesus Christ as God and Saviour
according to the scriptures, and therefore seek to fulfill together their
common calling to the glory of the one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit."

As
Osborn noted, Alexander Campbell refused to use the term Trinity because it was
not biblical, which leads to the question of whether the Trinity has biblical
support. Arius, the great opponent of Trinitarianism insisted that it wasn’t,
pointing to the lack of biblical support for the idea. But, in making this claim he also questioned
the idea of Christ's full divinity.
Others have been a little subtler in their questions than Arius, but
they also have found the doctrine difficult to accept.

Alexander
Campbell objected to what he called the "Calvinistic doctrine of the
Trinity" because it "confounds things human and divine, and gives new
ideas to bible terms unthought of by the inspired writers." One of the ideas that Campbell found
especially vexing was the pre-existence of the Son of God, an idea required by
most Trinitarian theologies. Campbell
insisted, however, that "there was no Jesus . . . no Son of God, no Only
Begotten, before the reign of Augustus Cesar.
The relation that was before the Christian era was not that of a son and
a father, terms which always imply disparity." Instead, Campbell thought of the relationship
as simply between God and the Word of God.
As Word of God, Campbell could affirm pre-existence, but not as son. [Alexander
Campbell, A Compend of Alexander
Campbell's Theology, Royal Humbert, ed., (St. Louis: Bethany, 1961), pp. 94-98.] Campbell also had
great difficulty with Trinitarian vocabulary, much of which he thought was
unbiblical. Yet in the end he affirms
the idea of the Trinity, even if he had difficulties with it:

Paul and Peter indeed speak of the
divine nature in the abstract, or of the divinity or godhead. These are the
most abstract terms found in the Bible. Eternity and divinity are, however,
equally abstract and almost equally rare in Holy Writ. Still they are
necessarily found in the divine volume; because we must abstract nature from person before we can understand the remedial system. For the divine
nature may be communicated or imparted in some sense; and, indeed, while it is
essentially and necessarily singular, it is certainly plural in its personal
manifestations. Hence, we have the
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit equally divine, though personally distinct from
each other. We have in fact, but one God, on Lord, one Holy Spirit; yet these
are equally possessed of one and the same divine nature. [Alexander Campbell, The Christian System, (Cincinnati: H.S. Bosworth, 1866; reprint, Salem, NH: Ayer Company, 1988), p. 20.]

We need
to state up front that much of the vocabulary that undergirds Trinitarian
doctrine is not found in the Bible. This includes the word Trinity itself.
Indeed, very few verses of scripture give explicit or implicit expression to
Trinitarian formulas. There are only two passages that provide us with a
Trinitarian formula: Matt. 28:19 and 2 Corinthians 13:13. If you are
Trinitarian, however, all hope is not lost. This is because there are many
verses of Scripture that make sense when read in a Trinitarian way. Brevard
Childs puts the issue in this way:

It is a formulation of the church
in its attempt to reflect faithfully on the biblical witness. But it was
precisely by observing the unity and differentiation of God within the biblical
revelation that the church was confronted with the Trinity. The divine subject,
predicate and object, are not only to be equated, but also differentiated.
Indeed, it is the doctrine of the Trinity which makes the doctrine of God
actually Christian. [Brevard Childs, Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments: Theological Reflection on the ChristianBible,(Minneapolis: Fortress Press,
1992), 375.]

Ultimately,
as we will see, the need for a doctrine of the Trinity ultimately arose from
the need to make sense of the church's affirmation of the divine sonship of
Jesus Christ. The doctrine emerged from the need to "do justice to the
Christ who was from the church's inception confessed as Lord." As Child's also notes that when nineteenth
century Christians lost interest in the doctrine of the Trinity their
Christologies also began to blur and become distorted. [Childs, Biblical Theology, p. 376].

If
Osborn speaks out of the traditional Disciple reticence to define God from a
Trinitarian viewpoint, a more recent Disciple theological discussion of the
concept, suggests that Disciples need to develop a “robust Trinitarian
theology.” Peter Goodwin Heltzel suggests that such an engagement is required
of us because of our engagement in the ecumenical movement. [Peter Goodwin Heltzel,
“Singing the Trinity,” inChaliceIntroduction to Disciples Theology,(St. Louis: Chalice Press, 2008), pp. 92ff.]

Trinity in the Bible

Christian
theology is rooted in the Hebrew Bible, and so the question has always been
there—can one find the roots of the Trinity in the Old Testament? Christian
theologians, especially in the pre-modern eras, were very adept at finding
those links, but we must be careful with how we read and appropriate these
texts—for Judaism is not Trinitarian. Texts like Genesis 1:26 have proven
intriguing for Christian reflection. The use of the plural in the phrase “let
us make human kind in our image, according to our likeness” is at least
suggestive of a plurality of some kind within God. Theologians have wondered
what the word “our” means. Now, it is doubtful that the author(s) had Trinity
in mind, but could the seeds be there? Is it appropriate for Christians to make
use of this phrase in developing a Trinitarian theology?

There
are concepts present in the Hebrew Bible that can give support to a Trinitarian
interpretation. This is especially true of such words as “Wisdom,” which is
often personalized in the Psalms and Proverbs as “Divine Wisdom” Wisdom is
usually thought of in feminine terms as well.
While, Divine Wisdom, is sometimes depicted as distinct from God, Wisdom
is often depicted as being involved in the creation of all things (Prov.
1:20-23; 9:1-6; Job 28; Ecclesiastes 24).
There is the concept of “Word,” or divine speech, which at times is
personified (Ps. 119:89; Ps. 147:15-20; Is. 55:10-11). And then there is the “Spirit of God,” who is
depicted often as God's presence in the world, active in creation (Gen. 1:2);
present in the life of the promised Messiah (Isa. 42:1-3); and as an agent of
new creation (Ezek. 36:26; 37:1-14). Then there is the concept of Shekinah (another word that is feminine
in nature), that describes the means of God’s dwelling in the world (Exodus
25:8; 43:9; Zech. 2:10; 8:3). These passages don’t make for a doctrine of the
Trinity, but they leave open the possibility of a broader understanding of
God’s nature. What we need to remember is that whatever understanding we might
have of these concepts and similar concepts, they must be understood in the
context of the Old Testament insistence on the oneness or unity of God (Deut.
6:4-5).

There
are no explicit statements of a doctrine of the trinity in the New Testament.,
either. The doctrine is a theological construction that attempts to make sense
of the biblical witness, especially those texts that affirm the primary
relationship between Father and Son.

There
is perhaps no more explicit statement relationship than Matthew 28:19, the
Great Commission, which provides us with the traditional baptismal formula –
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. While this
is the only New Testament expression of this formula, it has become the
standard formula for most churches. A
second passage, 2 Corinthians 13:13 (14), is more helpful in defining the
relationship, but it’s not without its own difficulties: “The grace of the Lord
Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with all
of you.” Romans 8:11 speaks to the relationship of Father, Son, and Spirit to
the issue of the resurrection. “If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the
dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will give life to your
mortal bodies also through his Spirit that dwells in you.”

For the
most part, however, the doctrine of the Trinity is built on a realization that
Scripture affirms the oneness of God, but also hints at the divinity of Christ
and of the Spirit. Theologians have
decided that the only way to really do justice to these affirmations is to
assume a doctrine of the Trinity.

The Historical
Development of a Trinitarian Vocabulary

One of
the needs the church faced early in its existence, especially as the church
spread in the Latin West, was a vocabulary that could express their developing
understandings of God. Tertullian, a
brilliant theologian and apologist for the church, filled that void in many
ways. We look to him for many of the
terms that the church would eventually use in this regard. He came up with several terms that are
important to our conversation. These terms include the very word trinity, which
comes from the Latin trinitas. He also introduced the term substance (Latin—substantia; Greek ousia), to describe the essence of God. Speaking in Trinitarian
terms, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share one substance. The third term was persona, which he used to translate the
Greek hypostasis. God is one in
substance, but still three persons. Tertullian interpreted the work of the
three persons of the Trinity in terms of God's salvific activity in the
World.

The
next stage in the process came at the Council of Nicaea. At that council the
primary positions were espoused by two Alexandrian priests, Arius and Athanasius.
While neither of these two men spoke at the council it was their theological
work that drove the conversation. In the end the position espoused by
Athanasius won the day. The question had to do with whether the son shared the
same substance as the Father. While Arius denied that Jesus shared full
divinity, insisting that this was the more biblical position, he lost the day
and the council embraced the term homoousious
(of the same substance) to define the relationship of Father and Son. While
the debate did not end at Nicaea, this position became normative for much of
the church.

Ways of Approaching
the Trinity

The foundational terms used
in describing the nature of God as Trinity were introduced in the third and
fourth centuries, the conversation continues to this day. Indeed, among
Disciples one will find partisans of both Athanasius and Arius. When it comes to Trinitarian theology, there
are essentially two ways of approaching this question. The first view is called
the Economic Trinity and the other is the Immanent Trinity. One focuses on God’s external activity in
bringing salvation to creation, and the other on God’s internal identity. Both
ways of approaching the question rely on the same formula that was espoused at Nicaea
and later at Constantinople in the fourth century.

The
reason why conversations about the Trinity often steer toward the “economic
Trinity,” is that it is more relatable. Talking about God’s internal being is
difficult to imagine. Talking about God meeting us as Trinity in Christ through
the Spirit with the promise of salvation speaks to where we live our lives.
When we talk of the economic Trinity, we’re talking about God’s role in the
creation, redemption, and sanctification of the created order. These three activities, however, should not
be seen as occurring sequentially. As Clark Williamson puts it: “in each moment
of our lives God creates us anew, redeems us out of the narrowness and
stupidity of the past, and calls us forward toward God’s future with all God’s
friends.” [Clark Williamson, Way of Blessing, Way of Life: A Christian Theology, (St. Louis: Chalice Press,
1999), p. 118.] Thus, through the doctrine of the Trinity, we name the God of
Israel who meets us in Jesus Christ, especially as Jesus is known to us on the
cross, and is present to us, empowering us, by the Holy Spirit.

When we
think about the Trinitarian nature of God, one of the more intriguing images is
that of the three visitors whom Abraham and Sarah encounter at the Oaks of
Mamre (18:1-15). Clark Williamson draws on this story that emphasizes
hospitality to suggest that “the Trinity is a communion of equal persons
(coequal, the tradition liked to say), and we are invited into such
communion.” He goes on to say:

We speak of God as one in order to
make clear that God is not divided, not double-minded. We speak of God as three to affirm communion
in God. Life is a blessing and well-being when all relations of domination and
oppression are expelled. Communion among persons is the divine order and the
intended human order of well-being. The fundamental intent of the doctrine of
the Trinity is to protect an understanding of God as a profound relational
communion. A relationship (not merely a
relation) of authentic communion among God, human beings, and all God’s
creatures is the aim of God’s work in the world. [Williamson, Way of Blessing, pp. 126-127.]

There is much more to be said about the Trinity. It is a
concept that is full of possibilities. In what I’ve shared so far is an
expression of the “Economic Trinity.” When we encounter God, we don’t encounter God’s
inner being, we encounter God as God engages us, bringing shalom, that is
healing, wholeness, salvation.

So, how
do we speak of God today? Many raise questions about the usefulness of Trinitarian
language, especially in its traditional formulation. Naming God as Father, Son,
and Holy Spirit can suggest that God is male and that males are superior to
women. Even if we consider the Holy
Spirit in feminine terms, this can easily lead to a top-down hierarchy that
leaves not only the Son as second in line, but the Spirit as a third person,
and sort of an afterthought. One of the
recent formulas that has gained popularity is Creator, Redeemer,
Sustainer/Sanctifier. The problem with
this form is that contrary to the biblical witness it focuses totally on
function, functions that each person of the Trinity is to express. Traditionally it has been held that “external
works of God are indivisible.” Clark Williamson,
following William Placher, suggests as a solution the formula: “Father, Son,
and Holy Spirit, Mother of us All” [Williamson, Way of Blessing,p. 115.] Trinitarian language has also proven
problematic for interfaith conversations.
Both Jews and Muslims are much stricter in their monotheism. This
language can be a stumbling block to these important conversations as well.

As we consider the nature of God, a
conversation that includes the name(s) we use, we must recognize that no name
and no understanding can exhaust the possibilities. Thus, we must continue to
push the boundaries. Whatever our theological formulas, they will not exhaust
what we would confess as to who God might be.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

John 21:1-19 New
Revised Standard Version (NRSV) 21 After these things Jesus showed himself again to the
disciples by the Sea of Tiberias; and he showed himself in this way. 2 Gathered
there together were Simon Peter, Thomas called the Twin, Nathanael of Cana in
Galilee, the sons of Zebedee, and two others of his disciples. 3 Simon Peter
said to them, “I am going fishing.” They said to him, “We will go with you.”
They went out and got into the boat, but that night they caught nothing. 4 Just after daybreak, Jesus stood on the beach; but the
disciples did not know that it was Jesus. 5 Jesus said to them, “Children, you
have no fish, have you?” They answered him, “No.” 6 He said to them, “Cast the
net to the right side of the boat, and you will find some.” So they cast it,
and now they were not able to haul it in because there were so many fish. 7
That disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, “It is the Lord!” When Simon
Peter heard that it was the Lord, he put on some clothes, for he was…

It makes sense to count the costs when deciding to make a big purchase such as a home or a car. Although it would seem prudent to sit down and “work the pencil,” not everyone takes the time to do so. One of the reasons why our nation is in the economic mess it’s in, is that too many people bought houses they couldn’t afford. Many were sucked in by suggestions that ours is an “ownership society,” offers of easy money, and promises that property was going to appreciate year after year, without end. In places like Southern California, Florida, and Las Vegas, everyone wanted to get on the band wagon as housing values increased at an annual rate of 25% to 45%. Many made a fortune, but as we’ve seen many more have lost untold millions. I wonder about how many people counted the cost before they bought? There was a war that our nation entered into In 2003. We were told that this war would be over quickly and with little sacrifice on our part. Just months after the invasion began…

Luke 4:21-30 New
Revised Standard Version (NRSV)21 Then he began to say to them,
“Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.” 22 All
spoke well of him and were amazed at the gracious words that came from his
mouth. They said, “Is not this Joseph’s son?” 23 He
said to them, “Doubtless you will quote to me this proverb, ‘Doctor, cure
yourself!’ And you will say, ‘Do here also in your hometown the things that we
have heard you did at Capernaum.’” 24 And he said,
“Truly I tell you, no prophet is accepted in the prophet’s hometown. 25 But
the truth is, there were many widows in Israel in the time of Elijah, when the
heaven was shut up three years and six months, and there was a severe famine
over all the land; 26 yet Elijah was sent to none
of them except to a widow at Zarephath in Sidon. 27 There
were also many lepers[a] in Israel in the time
of the prophet Elisha, and none of them was cleansed except Naaman the
Syrian.” 28 When they heard this, all in the
synagogue were fil…

I am a Disciples of Christ pastor, theologian, community activist, historian, teacher. I'm a graduate of Fuller Theological Seminary with a M.Div. and a Ph.D. in Historical Theology. I'm the author of a number of books including
Out of the Office: A Theology of Ministry (Energion, 2017), Marriage in Interesting Times (Energion, 2016), and Freedom in Covenant (Wipf and Stock, 2015).